Jump to content

User talk:Esowteric/Archives/2023/July

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sorabji article

Hello, I realise you're a pro at this and I am just starting out but if you could let me know where I was wrong on the Sorabji article, I'd appreciate it. It is imperative that scholars of colour are recognised for their contributions to research. Furthermore, if you are used edited books, it is imperative that the authors for the different chapters are credited. They have, after all, done the research. Thank you. UAAMAZ (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, UAAMAZ. I'm sorry, I don't have the time to help you with Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji. I suggest that you discuss your issues on the article's talk page, Talk:Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji. You can also ask questions at the Teahouse. Regards, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 08:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your response, especially as you are busy. This is frustrating as I'm told to 'talk' to you - by the Teahouse group. I thought you were the author of the article. Not sure how to sort this one out but I will keep trying as I've been asked to correct references. Cheers! UAAMAZ (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
If you're talking about Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, I may have reverted an edit at some time, but I certainly have had little to do with it. If you've been reverted recently, then maybe discuss on the article talk page or discuss on the reverting editor's talk page. Thanks, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
See this recent edit difference by Toccata quarta which asks you to discuss the issue on the article talk page. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:34, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:FOLLOWING

information Administrator note You've now followed me and other users to multiple boards to comment with your POV after our comments. Read WP:FOLLOWING. I strongly suggest you stop it. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that and have responded at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Archive/2023/07#Witchcraft. I was trying to keep track of the many, rapid developments, and as well as page history I checked recent contributions, and discovered that there was discussion going on elsewhere (other than on the article talk page), and I felt that both "sides" of the thorny issue at Witchcraft deserved equitable representation. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft

I think it's about time to open some RFCs and move requests. Perhaps we should discuss neutral wording here before creating these more formal proposals. Feel free to invite who you'd like to take part in that discussion. Skyerise (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Skyerise. There's nobody else I know at Wikipedia with an interest in such subjects. I was wondering about getting a tally of those in favour or opposing a resolution, and what words might be used. I guess it would require a brief preamble, so that uninvolved editors could appreciate the reasoning behind the proposal/s and why they are necessary (?) Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I see you made bold moves to remove modern material from the article. After that, I guess might come a suggested page retitling (?) Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
That's where we will probably need an RFC. It's still Sunday morning in the US. After certain editors get out of church, we may encounter more opposition. lol! Sunday morning is always the best time to make major changes to occult articles... Skyerise (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, still only 11:38 EST, and I'm sure that there are editors States-side who would certainly like to have their say. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd be bold and move things around, but I'm sure that without an RFC the result would be reversed and I'd get blocked to boot. If we're lucky, what I've done so far will stick. Skyerise (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I think an RfC would be prudent, but as for which direction it would take with uninvolved editors, I wouldn't like to say. It may all hinge on whether established, involved editors are in support. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, an RFC always gets advertised for those who follow them, so it usually brings in established editors who are new to the article. Best way to break a stalemate when there are more than a few editors involved. Skyerise (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Excellent work with the article moves, which are a great improvement and which should help lessen readers' and editors' confusion and perennial talk page outrage. I must say, though, that concerted efforts at "outreach" are being made to ensure that readers first through the obligatory warnings that "witchcraft traditionally and worldwide, usually means the use of malevolent magic" and that the witch-cult hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked, though things are more collegial and there's certainly less rough 'n tumble and "missionary zeal" than in areas involving fringe issues and scepticism. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks... I am wondering whether the editor who redirected all the contemporary/modern witchcraft redirects to Witchcraft intended to provoke conflict, did it for the lolz, or just made a mistake. Skyerise (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Will have to check through the history. Well, a couple of years prior to the protection for move vandalism at Witch (even though there were no intervening moves), the editor Dekimasu wrote: "placed a redirect tag [from Witch to] Witchcraft to take care of your concerns. since this was merged there, i think the redirect does make sense. otherwise the old page should be reinstated." This sounds plausible. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Asarlaí has just reverted me without replying on the talk page to my rationale for removal. What's your daimon say? Skyerise (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

My daemon says, it simply provides us with more evidence. I could revert, but I'm personally letting it stand, having been entered into the record. Give them as much rope as they need. Hopefully others will come to check out the article and talk page history. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that's about what mine's saying too. Skyerise (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I also pinged Scyrme, who reponded at length with their thoughts at the end of this section on their talk page. Skyerise (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
A thoughtful piece, thanks. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 14:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I ping them in situations like this. Skyerise (talk) 14:03, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

New proposal

Skyerise, I agree with your new proposal, Worldwide historical and traditional views of witchcraft. And visitors will (as I'm sure you're well aware) need to know why the proposed move is necessary. Over to you! Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I pinged someone uninvolved about closing the current discussion. If no response it could be taken to WP:CR. It would be a mess to make a new proposal before that one is closed. It's clearly a snowball oppose closure, so really anyone should be able to close it, but best to follow process. Skyerise (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)re
Do you happen to know when the hidden HTML comment was added? The length of the enforced restriction on content seems relevant. Skyerise (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Not off-hand, Skyerise. Maybe around 2017 when the "malevolent" stuff first got a mention (???). Got to go take a shower, but will check through the history. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I've tried usingc this tool, but it apparently ignores text inside an HTML comment. Guess it'll have to be done the hard way. :-( Skyerise (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
So far, I've determined that it wasn't there as recently as March 31, 2018. Skyerise (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I've seen a HTML note from 1 Jan 2022. Will have to take a shower. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 17:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
It appears to have been added by Omphaloscope (talk · contribs) on 25 November 2021. Skyerise (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Later on, the wording has changed to "Please read before editing! This article is focused on the traditional and globally-predominant meaning of the term, which is the use of metaphysical means to harm the innocent. While recently-invented positive meanings, used in the modern Pagan and New Age movements, are touched on and linked further down, those are not the focus of this article." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The latest multi-line version is present on 8 July 2023. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:24, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
These HTML remarks are noteworthy. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:RC? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, meant WP:CR. Closure requests. Skyerise (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, no: that's my dyslexia. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I suggest it might be best to give it a rest for a day. You know what they say about cornered creatures. Skyerise (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay. I guess I'm "all revved up" as Meatloaf sang. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm waiting for some shred of a proposal from the other editors. Always best to let them think they thought of it first. OTOH, I was born in an Earth Dog year. This is just my kind of bone. Skyerise (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Fire Rooster! Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
HOT! I wonder if anyone realizes that repeating "Worldwide historical and traditional views of witchcraft" over and over, even online, would be considered a spell by neopagan accounts. "You get what you conjure," I think some branch of the craft or other would say. Something, something, something ... petard. Skyerise (talk) 20:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Emile Coué's auto-suggestive mantra, "Every day and in every [good] way, I am getting better and better" helped me through a bad patch in my young adulthood (Dion Fortune is not the only one to have a breakdown / breakthrough). These days, it's "Thanks be to Mushkil Gusha, Remover of All Difficulties." Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 20:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Have requested closure (snow oppose). Let me know here, if you can, how you'd like things to move forward. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 21:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Skyerise, you've gone quiet. Hope things are okay with you. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Unlike ChatGPT, sometimes I have to sleep. Skyerise (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The magic words

"ahistorical and non-traditional" As in "But neopagan witchcraft is both ahistorical and non-traditional." LoL! Skyerise (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd be ready with those systemic bias and unbalanced templates, if I were you. Skyerise (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I've made the bold move of adding systemic bias and unbalanced templates. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 07:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Nice. Skyerise (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikiland (Andreas Kolbe at Twitter and Wikipediocracy here) may or may not want to cover this.
Can you remember specific modern terms that until recently redirected to Witchcraft? They would deserve mention. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
this is not all of it, but it captures a significant swath. Darker Dreams (talk) 11:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Great. Thanks a lot. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Here's a full list, though a few may be newly created. Skyerise (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Skyerise. This is your baby, so I'll leave it up to you to do as you will (an' it harm none). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Clearly you forgot to consecrate your keyboard with blood magic. Get with it! (lol). Skyerise (talk) 12:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm relying on, and trying to respond to the prompts of, my daemon here. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
You quite likely want more change than I would be satisfied with. I've brought up solving systemic bias in the lead. There are most likely instances of bias throughout the article which I don't have the bandwidth to go searching for, but would love your opinion as to precisely where the most egregious examples are... Skyerise (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
That bold deletion you made was welcome, though I see another editor didn't appreciate it. I'd be happy to settle for what others here find reasonable, having hopefully highlighted that it's a big and thorny issue.
I'm hoping that Wikiland at Twitter will pick up on this: he's written for the Signpost and had articles published in the media. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 13:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think we may have finally reached a sort of critical mass on the number of editors paying attention and making edits. This is generally necessary to make progress in a stuck situation, as a bunch of bumbling editors making chaotic changes to the article tends to use up the revert quota of the gatekeepers faster, allowing change to occur simply because they run out of reverts... "more eyes on" is always a good strategy, but frequently hard to accomplish, because eyes are not enough; they have to put their hand in as well. Be sure not to revert these chaotic edits; we're there to change the article, not help maintain the status quo. Skyerise (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same with running online groups. Pump energy in until you reach critical mass and then a self-sustaining fusion reaction is initiated. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 16:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Witch (archetype)

Our coverage of Archetypes seems rather slim. Jung and his successors have produced a lot of material about the various archetypes of the collective unconscious. I suspect writing an article about each is in order. In some cases where the reality of the actual target is doubtful, the main article might really need to be about the archetype, don't you think? Redirecting "witch" to "witchcraft" assumes witchcraft is real and by extension, witches. But I suspect scientific consensus would be that the witch archetype is real, but until Wicca, witches were not real. Skyerise (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Skyerise. You raise a great possibility. Jung has his detractors, and some would say that Jungians or "Jungianism" have gone astray, but in recent years I've had a growing interest in depth psychology, and this would make a great addition. No other thoughts occur to me right now. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


References

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Darker Dreams (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Darker Dreams. Direct link. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 06:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Skyerise, you raise many valid points, not least your research into definition vs. stereotype. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I waited till I was more fresh and alert, but I've added my statement. Skyerise (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
A splendid offering. Thank you, Skyerise. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
"What [Sir James George Frazer, in The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion] calls magic is the effort to conjure with the invisible world, whether intentional or not. While magical thinking—the assumption that my thoughts or actions can have an effect on the other—may strike us as naive and misguided, we have to recall the power of complexes, projections, scapegoating, psychic possession, and transference phenomena, which Jung helped identify, to admit that, indeed, there is such movement of invisible energy for which the word magic was once used." ... "Frazer's magic is primary psychic process".
~ James Hollis. The Archetypal Imagination (Carolyn and Ernest Fay Series in Analytical Psychology) (Kindle Location 417). Kindle Edition.
Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
So, I'm not sure whether we will get a satisfactory resolution at DRN, but the topic could and should be revisited in a year or so because the page views on witchcraft have been artificially inflated since 16 March 2017 when the old Contemporary witchcraft was inexplicably "merged" into 'witchcraft' and all the relevant redirects also changed to target that article. Even with that misdirection page views of Wicca exceed page views of Witchcraft. In a year I expect we will find that at least 2/3s of readers are actually looking for Neopagan witchcraft rather than Witchcraft. Skyerise (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Wicca

Are you paying attention to what's happening at Wicca? Skyerise (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed, Skyerise. I'm trying to not get involved, except for the DRN, which may be going somewhere. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
The most recent edition of the article on Encyclopedia Britannica (June 2023) really puts the nail in the coffin of the traditionalists: "Witchcraft thus defined exists more in the imagination of contemporaries than in any objective reality. Yet this stereotype has a long history and has constituted for many cultures a viable explanation of evil in the world." They can't claim this is simply about the "image". Skyerise (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that's a beaut. Glad you archived it, too. Don't know if you saw Jayen466's comment in "Ridiculous!" on the Witchcraft talk page: apparently in 1999 they, too, had depicted witchcraft as malevolent at that point in time. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
So our traditionalists are basing their position on the presentation in a 25 year old encyclopedia article? I wonder if they've even looked at any 21st- century sources? Skyerise (talk) 11:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, Hutton et al are all pretty recent, but maybe hooked up with a traditionalist worldview? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Or maybe all the qualifying language has been ignored in all the sources? Skyerise (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Could be: worth checking. That's one of the reasons I used the word "nuanced" in a statement at the DRN. I would imagine that they'll throw cold water on the Britannica as a reliable source. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 11:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Except that they've been claiming things like "Likewise, you don't see Britannica confusing concepts" in the DRN. Skyerise (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, that phrasing in Britannica is basically summarizing the material in the 5 secondary sources I provided. Skyerise (talk) 12:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Witchcraft: Please be aware of the DRN rules and moderator advice

Please be aware that due to the ongoing dispute resolution case about Witchcraft, DRN Rule A now applies. We are advised by the moderator not to discuss the matter on talk pages, and to treat the article as if it were fully protected.

In addition, we need to listen carefully to all points of view expressed, and take care not to misrepresent our own point of view, nor that of other parties in this dispute. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 06:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Ronald Hutton in his own words

Here's some interesting material. Hutton in his own words: "Magic in Paganism, Wicca, Druidry with Prof Ronald Hutton". Video interview/chat (1 hr 7 min). Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:46, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Esowteric/Archives/2023/July&oldid=1170121708"